Magisterium concerning Creation/evolution controversy

[PhilVaz]

Hecd << (I should make it clear that, being a non-believer, I do not myself accept the authority of any religious person or institution. However, that does not, it seems to me, prevent me from putting myself in the shoes of the faithful nor invalidate my prediction about the practical effect of PoG’s mission). >>

You’ve summed up the thread well, looks like we gotta go back before Pius XII. Pius XII (r. 1939-1958) clearly held to a billions year old earth and universe, according to a statement he made to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1951:

"Thirty years ago, on 22 November 1951, my predecessor Pope Pius XII, speaking about the problem of the origin of the universe at the Study Week on the subject of microseisms organized by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, expressed himself as follows: 'In vain would one expect a reply from the sciences of nature, which on the contrary frankly declare that they find themselves faced by an insoluble enigma. It is equally certain that the human mind versed in philosophical meditation penetrates the problem more deeply. One cannot deny that a mind which is enlightened and enriched by modern scientific knowledge and which calmly considers this problem is led to break the circle of matter which is totally independent and autonomous – as being either uncreated or having created itself – and to rise to a creating Mind. With the same clear and critical gaze with which it examines and judges the facts, it discerns and recognizes there the work of creative Omnipotence, whose strength raised up by the powerful fiat uttered billions of years ago by the creating Mind, has spread through the universe, calling into existence, in a gesture of generous love, matter teeming with energy’ " (Pope John Paul II citing Pope Pius XII, 10/3/1981 to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, "Cosmology and Fundamental Physics")

As I’ve said elsewhere, a “faithful” Catholic is “free” to believe in an earth that is flat, fixed, young and non-evolving, but why should anyone in the 21st century?

I can see a Catholic today arguing Ken Miller against Richard Dawkins, but not Samuel Birley Rowbotham against Carl Sagan.

Phil P

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I hold in contempt any attempt by any person or organisation, church or government to dictate to me what ideas I may or may not entertain, what books I may or may not read, what opinions I may or may not express. Our freedom to think and say as we will was dearly bought, is wonderfully precious and we should never give it up.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

So if you express an opinion that 2 + 2 = 5, would the mathematician be in contempt for correcting this error or saying that it is wrong?

Or if you express the opinion that water must always freeze at 0°C, would the climatoligist be in contempt for correcting this error or saying that it is wrong?

Or if you express the opinion that the Curie point of iron must always be 1043°K, would the chemist be in contempt for correcting this error or saying that it is wrong?

I realize that you do not think that 2 + 2 = 5, etc., etc.

But, theologically speaking, this is what the Church is doing, protecting people from drawing incorrect conclusions about God. She shouldn’t be held in contempt for correcting the errors of the world on these spiritual matters when God has given her the authority to do so either.

 

[wildleafblower]

I hold in contempt any attempt by any person or organisation, church or government to dictate to me what ideas I may or may not entertain, what books I may or may not read, what opinions I may or may not express. Our freedom to think and say as we will was dearly bought, is wonderfully precious and we should never give it up.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Hi Alec

I wholeheartedly agree with your statement. It also supports the following:

*International Community’s Interest

1. It is noted with satisfaction that during the last decades the international community has shown interest in the safeguarding of human rights and fundamental liberties and has carefully concerned itself with respect for freedom of conscience and of religion in well-known documents such as:

a) the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights of December 10, 1948 (article 18);

b) the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights approved by the United Nations on December 16, 1966 (article 18);

c) the Final Act of the Conference on European Security and Cooperation, signed on August 1, 1975 (“Questions related to security in Europe, 1, a. Declaration on the principles governing mutual relationships among participating states: VIII. Respect for human rights and fundamental liberties, including freedom of thought, conscience, religion or conviction”).* (MESSAGE OF JOHN PAUL II, ON THE VALUE AND CONTENT OF FREEDOM
OF CONSCIENCE AND OF RELIGION, From the Vatican, September 1, 1980.)

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1980/november/documents/hf_jp_ii_spe_19801114_atto-helsinki_en.html
I have the FREEDOM to think! And I’m a Christian too. Tee, hee

p.s. Thanks Tim (Orogeny). You are a superb investigator!

 

[PoG]

continued from post #256
FAITH & REASON
www.kolbecenter.org - articles section

Humani Generis, published in 1950, was the last Magisterial statement concerning origins. In that encyclical His Holiness Pope Pius XII reaffirmed condemnation of Pantheistic and Gnostic conceptions of evolutionism and also the heretical idea of polygenism - the notion of more than one first parent, of more than one human individual whom we all descend from. Such doctrine not only destroys the heretical speculations of theologians such as Fr.'s Teilhard de Chardin and Rahner but also stops the naturalistic conceptual process of macroevolution dead in its tracks. A Monitum was issued by the Holy Office in 1962 warning against the works of Rev. Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J. The Monitum is still in force and was, in fact, reiterated in 1981. [20] *Humani Generis *spends much effort warning the Church Militant of false philosophy and false science being used to undermine Sacred Scripture and Tradition but unfortunately one paragraph leaves a chink of light for theistic evolutionists to work upon. His Holiness wrote:

For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter – for the Catholic Faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the Dogmas of Faith. Some however rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from preexisting and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question. [21]

Blatantly disregarding the weight of dogma, doctrine and tradition previously outlined in this essay, theistic evolutionists endeavor to argue from this one paragraph that it leaves open the possibility that the Special Creation of Adam refers only to his soul and not to his body. Yet in order to do so the theistic evolutionist must also ignore the consistent teaching of the Church concerning Adam and Eve. For instance, His Holiness Pope Pelagius writing to King Childebert I in 557 A.D:

For I confess that all men from Adam, even to the consummation of the world, having been born and having died with Adam himself and his wife, who were not born of other parents, but were created, the one from the earth, the other [al.: altera], however, from the rib of man. [22]

 

[Orogeny]

Blatantly disregarding the weight of dogma, doctrine and tradition previously outlined in this essay, theistic evolutionists endeavor to argue from this one paragraph that it leaves open the possibility that the Special Creation of Adam refers only to his soul and not to his body. Yet in order to do so the theistic evolutionist must also ignore the consistent teaching of the Church concerning Adam and Eve. For instance, His Holiness Pope Pelagius writing to King Childebert I in 557 A.D:

Why does a letter from Pope Pelagius to King Childebert I carry more weight than that of a Cardinal Ratzinger-authorized official Vatican statement? Then Cardinal Ratzinger’s official Vatican statement says:

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.

and then goes on to say:

Catholic theology affirms that that the emergence of the first members of the human species (whether as individuals or in populations) represents an event that is not susceptible of a purely natural explanation and which can appropriately be attributed to divine intervention.

(emphasis added by me)

You are now claiming that Cardinal Ratzinger either didn’t know that Catholic dogma does not allow for a population of original parents (he was ignorant) or he violated that dogmatic teaching (he was heretical). Which is it that you prefer to accuse our sitting Pope of?

Peace

Tim

 

[PoG]

Posted by Orogeny
Why does a letter from Pope Pelagius to King Childebert I carry more weight than that of a Cardinal Ratzinger-authorized official Vatican statement?

Good question, Tim. Now we’re back on track.

First of all the text that you quote is clearly a case of personal opinion relating to some claims of scientific inference. The text is not a profession of faith or morals, nor does it concern a belief that has always and everywhere been held by the Church.

The statement from His Holiness Pope Pelagius is part of a Profession of Faith (*Fides Pelagii Papae *- February 3rd, 557A.D.)made by a successor of St. Peter in his role as Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church. This Profession of Faith made to King Childebert I was shortly afterwards repeated by His Holiness to the whole Church (Vas Electionis). *Vas Electionis *also carries an affirmation of Faith regarding the Universal Judgement in which His Holiness solemnly professes that:

I confess … that all men from Adam onward who have been born and have died up to the end of the world will then rise again and stand “before the judgment-seat of Christ,” together with Adam himself and his wife, who were not born of other parents, but were created: one from the earth and the other from the side of the man (… ).

The Kolbe article needs to elaborate on the points above.

You are now claiming that Cardinal Ratzinger either didn’t know that Catholic dogma does not allow for a population of original parents (he was ignorant) or he violated that dogmatic teaching (he was heretical). Which is it that you prefer to accuse our sitting Pope of?

I haven’t claimed either as far as I’m aware and I prefer not to make speculative accusations about anyone. I leave it to God to know all things and to Judge accordingly. My concern is to bring to light documented Magisterial Teaching in regard to origins and early human history because I believe that most people are unaware of it nowadays.

 

[wildleafblower]

DustinsDad msg.198:* “Not necessarily stupid or evil. Blind and deceived would be a better choice of words…” *

WLB msg. 204: "DustinsDad, your comment was directed at Dr. Alec MacAndrew’s remarks on page 4, message 198, "I am fed up by instances where those who do not have the slightest knowledge of science (indeed less than no knowledge, because their misconeption of what the science says is laughably wrong) and who cannot be bothered to do the work needed to educate themselves in the subject, go on for paragraph after didactic paragraph about how they can see some obvious and fundamental flaw in the theory of evolution, or consensus cosmology, or general relativity or whatever it happens to be, a fundamental flaw that the scientists who have studied and researched the subject all their working lives are too stupid or too evil to see. In the circumstances, I think my rebuke was quite mild. Alec evolutionpages.com ” [msg. 184] DustinsDad, your remark to Alec MacAndrew who has a PhD in Physics was most unkind. He provides you knowledge that supports evolution is a fact, An Introduction to the History and Basic Scientific Concepts in Evolution.evolutionpages.com/intro_evolution.htm "

DustinsDad msg. 255:* “I’m sorry, but PhDs can be blind and deceived just like anyone else. And when the ground rules of their “specialty” mandate that they view the world first by taking God - and any reference to Him - out of the picture, puts them in a very, very vulnerable position to be both blind and deceived. And besides all that - their arguments are unconvincing. When they start drifting into Bible commentary, their attempts to square their “findings” with Divine Revelation gets a bit ridiculous. Obviously so. So if the penalty for receiving and holding to the deposit of faith handed to us from Christ and the Apostles means being scoffed at by the Enlightened ones, I’ll praise God for being privilaged enough to suffer such mild discomfort for His sake. Peace in Christ” *

DustinsDad, I give thanks to the Holy Spirit of God for keeping me calm in the storm and maintaining human compassion for those who are wrongly persecuted. I’m enlightened by the fact that Dr. Alec MacAndrew wasn’t dishonest when he wrote the truth about Roman Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis, Ph.D. cand., Open University in Europe, whose a Young Earth Creationist on the Advisory Council for Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation. Here’s Alec’s article ** Flogging a Pink Unicorn**, Why Modern Geocentrism is Intellectual Blancmange http://www.evolutionpages.com/pink_unicorn.htm

 

[DustinsDad]

… I’m enlightened by the fact that Dr. Alec MacAndrew wasn’t dishonest when he wrote the truth about Roman Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis…

Your “feelings” of enlightenment are duely noted.

I merely suggest to you that once one seperates the arguments for or against people from arguments for or against the particular theories being espoused, one is better equipped to be enlightened.

But then again - I prefer to be enlightened by that awesome and wonderful deposit of faith handed to us in tact from Christ and the Apostles in His Church. .

And to turn Adam and Eve into something other than the first man and the first woman does damage to that deposit of faith and falls on its face in any logical examination thus far heard. Arguments trying to reconcile the two are, in my humble opinion, quite unconvincing.

DustinsDad

 

[wildleafblower]

This sums it up quite well for me…DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON DIVINE REVELATION DEI VERBUM SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON NOVEMBER 18, 1965

"*…Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).

12.** However**, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another… (8)*

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

Here is an example:
[5] In ancient Israel a day was considered to begin at sunset. According to the highly artificial literary structure of ⇒ Genesis 1:1-⇒ 2:4a, God’s creative activity is divided into six days to teach the sacredness of the sabbath rest on the seventh day in the Israelite religion (⇒ Genesis 2:2-3) (1)

Pope Benedict XVI was President of the Pontifical Biblical Commission Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Dean of the College of Cardinal.(2) He played a major role in updating the current American Bible. After reading the footnotes in Genesis, rest assured that Pope Benedict XVI has great confidence that his Jesuits and his Scientific Advisory Committee, which is employed by the Vatican, will assist him with scientific contributions that are of global significance in our modern world.

1. vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P3.HTM
2. vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030510_ratzinger-comm-bible_en.html

 

[wildleafblower]

You’ve summed up the thread well, looks like we gotta go back before Pius XII. Pius XII (r. 1939-1958) clearly held to a billions year old earth and universe, according to a statement he made to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1951:

"Thirty years ago, on 22 November 1951, my predecessor Pope Pius XII, speaking about the problem of the origin of the universe at the Study Week on the subject of microseisms organized by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, expressed himself as follows: 'In vain would one expect a reply from the sciences of nature, which on the contrary frankly declare that they find themselves faced by an insoluble enigma. It is equally certain that the human mind versed in philosophical meditation penetrates the problem more deeply. One cannot deny that a mind which is enlightened and enriched by modern scientific knowledge and which calmly considers this problem is led to break the circle of matter which is totally independent and autonomous – as being either uncreated or having created itself – and to rise to a creating Mind. With the same clear and critical gaze with which it examines and judges the facts, it discerns and recognizes there the work of creative Omnipotence, whose strength raised up by the powerful fiat uttered billions of years ago by the creating Mind, has spread through the universe, calling into existence, in a gesture of generous love, matter teeming with energy’ " (Pope John Paul II citing Pope Pius XII, 10/3/1981 to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, "Cosmology and Fundamental Physics")

As I’ve said elsewhere, a “faithful” Catholic is “free” to believe in an earth that is flat, fixed, young and non-evolving, but why should anyone in the 21st century?

I can see a Catholic today arguing Ken Miller against Richard Dawkins, but not Samuel Birley Rowbotham against Carl Sagan.

Phil P

Hi Phil

THE FOUR-HUNDREDTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 1603-2003, The Commemorative Session of 9 November 2003, ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II TO THE MEMBERS OF THE PONTIFICAL, ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

*Our gatherings have also enabled me to clarify important aspects of the Church’s doctrine and life relating to scientific research. We are united in our common desire to correct misunderstandings and even more to allow ourselves to be enlightened by the one Truth which governs the world and guides the lives of all men and women. I am more and more convinced that scientific truth, which is itself a participation in divine Truth, can help philosophy and theology to understand ever more fully the human person and God’s Revelation about man, a Revelation that is completed and perfected in Jesus Christ. For this important mutual enrichment in the search for the truth and the benefit of mankind, I am, with the whole Church, profoundly grateful.

The two topics which you have chosen for your meeting concern the life sciences, and in particular the very nature of human life. The first, Mind, Brain and Education, draws our attention to the complexity of human life and its pre-eminence over other forms of life. Neuroscience and neurophysiology, through the study of chemical and biological processes in the brain, contribute greatly to an understanding of its workings. But the study of the human mind involves more than the observable data proper to the neurological sciences. Knowledge of the human person is not derived from the level of observation and scientific analysis alone but also from the interconnection between empirical study and reflective understanding.

Scientists themselves perceive in the study of the human mind the mystery of a spiritual dimension which transcends cerebral physiology and appears to direct all our activities as free and autonomous beings, capable of responsibility and love, and marked with dignity. This is seen by the fact that you have decided to expand your research to include aspects of learning and education, which are specifically human activities.
Thus your considerations focus not just on the biological life common to all living creatures but also include the interpretive and evaluative work of the human mind.*
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/archivio/acta17_anniversary/part1.pdf
PHIL, you mention Richard Dawking. I’ve just completed reading his latest book. I think we should discuss it as a group. What say you? Have you read it? Or has anyone else? I’m in a book club where a group of women believers/non-believers of God critiqued it. We debated issues and were left with quite a few unanswered questions. Ah, we didn’t even have one cat fight!

 

[DustinsDad]

This sums it up quite well for me…

You neglect these words from the third chapter of DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION…
“But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith…”
It seems your side cannot reconcile many of its position(s) with that living tradition of the Church. Ignoring, ridiculing, or pretending the living tradition of the Church doesn’t exist isn’t persuasive. Quoting footnotes from the NAB won’t cut it, and neither are quips from obscure commission reports, etc.

Rather than citing evidence from definitive teachings of the Church (as you apparently are trying to accomplish), you merely provide real-life examples of where modernist ideas and tendancies have influenced non-binding and non-definitive opinions of some in the church today. You also demonstrate how the essay form of the documents of Vatican II suffer from being ambigous to the nth degree - providing for two people to come away with two different and contradictory understandings.

What we need right now - and should all be praying for - is courage and clarity from all levels of the Church. And the grace for us all to listen.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[PhilVaz]

wild << PHIL, you mention Richard Dawkins. I’ve just completed reading his latest book. I think we should discuss it as a group. What say you? Have you read it? Or has anyone else? I’m in a book club where a group of women believers/non-believers of God critiqued it. We debated issues and were left with quite a few unanswered questions. Ah, we didn’t even have one cat fight! >>

You travel in intellectual circles! You are discussing Dawkins latest, The God Delusion? I don’t have it yet, I’m cheap waiting for the paperback. I’ve read some critiques online, one is by Alister McGrath. Here is another general critique. Here is an interview. It would be interesting seeing them together in debate.

Phil P

 

[Orogeny]

I haven’t claimed either as far as I’m aware and I prefer not to make speculative accusations about anyone. I leave it to God to know all things and to Judge accordingly. My concern is to bring to light documented Magisterial Teaching in regard to origins and early human history because I believe that most people are unaware of it nowadays.

Well, is the teaching in the Cardinal Ratzinger document in line with Magesterial teaching or is it not? If it is not, what are the implications of the document? Do you believe (speculation is specifically requested here) that Cardinal Ratzinger was aware of the Magesterial teaching you refer to? If so, what are the implications of that document? No accusations are being asked for, just opinions based on your understanding of Magesterial teaching.

Peace

Tim

 

[DustinsDad]

Well, is the teaching in the Cardinal Ratzinger document in line with Magesterial teaching or is it not?..

I’ll chime in here…

The excerpt I’ll comment on is this one from the commission’s 2002 paper:“Catholic theology affirms that that the emergence of the first members of the human species (whether as individuals or in populations) represents an event that is not susceptible of a purely natural explanation and which can appropriately be attributed to divine intervention.”
On the one hand, this comment affirms that the creation of man cannot be attributed to purly natural causes or explained on a purley natural scientific basis (apart from God’s supernatural intervention and causation) - and that is perfectly orthodox.

As to the part in parentheses - *"*whether as individuals or in populations" - very interesting. If one takes the phrase in the way you obviously want it taken, it does seem to “allow” a contradiction of Magisterial teaching down through the ages, or to at least be somewhat tolerant of the theory for the sake of scientific examination.

But such a view, if taken beyond theory and raised to the level of “fact” (which some here propose), would not only contradict the abundance of clear and authoritative references to Adam and Eve as individuals down through the ages brought out by others on this thread, but even today’s Catechism stands in opposition to that positionCCC 359) “In reality it is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man truly becomes clear.”

St. Paul tells us that the human race takes its origin from two men: Adam and Christ…The first man, Adam, he says, became a living soul, the last Adam a life-giving spirit. The first Adam was made by the last Adam, from whom he also received his soul, to give him life…The second Adam stamped his image on the first Adam when he created him. That is why he took on himself the role and the name of the first Adam, in order that he might not lose what he had made in his own image. The first Adam, the last Adam: the first had a beginning, the last knows no end. The last Adam is indeed the first; as he himself says: “I am the first and the last.”

(CCC 375) The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”. This grace of original holiness was “to share in…divine life”.

But, on the other hand, what it could be saying (and I think it is if read in context with the paragraph) is that no matter how you take it, if you propose that the emmergence of man happened on a purly natural level without Divine supernatural causation, you err. And that would be entirely correct - though the wording is soft and unforceful and can lead to misinterpretations such as your own. Seems to me that the desire “not to offend” the secular/scientific world weakens the strength of this document and can cause confusion for the faithful. Tis the times we are living in.

But then again, the thrust of this document is to harken those in the scientific world to recall that man is disctinct from animals, unique in being created in the image and likeness of God. To pursue their work ignorant of this reality has devastating consequences - abortion, euthanasia, human cloning and the direct and intentional destruction of embryonic human life for the sake of scientific experimentation, etc. For attacking these evils, the paper should be lauded (see section 3 of the document) - despite some of the obvious abmiguities present in it.

As to what then Cardinal Ratzinger (or more specifically, the committee authoring the document) meant by the phrase in parentheses above, or what position he actually holds to, I’m not privvy. This obscure document isn’t high enough up the authoritative ladder to worry too much about it - it’s not protected under infallibility. Like anything you read from the Church, whether Scripture, encyclicals, or committee letters like this one, it must be read in light of Tradition, not apart from it.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[wildleafblower]

As to what then Cardinal Ratzinger (or more specifically, the committee authoring the document) meant by the phrase in parentheses above, or what position he actually holds to, I’m not privvy. This obscure document isn’t high enough up the authoritative ladder to worry too much about it - it’s not protected under infallibility. Like anything you read from the Church, whether Scripture, encyclicals, or committee letters like this one, it must be read in light of Tradition, not apart from it.

MOTU PROPRIO
for the approval and publication
of the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church

*To my Venerable Brothers the Cardinals, Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Deacons and to all the People of God.

Twenty years ago, work began on the Catechism of the Catholic Church that had been requested by the extraordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops held on the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of the close of the Second Vatican Council.

I am filled with heartfelt thanks to the Lord God for having given the Church this Catechism, promulgated in 1992 by my venerated and beloved Predecessor, Pope John Paul II.
The great value and beauty of this gift are confirmed above all by the extensive and positive reception of the Catechism among Bishops, to whom it was primarily addressed as a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine and, in particular, for formulating local catechisms. But it was also confirmed by its vast favourable reception in all segments of the People of God, who have come to know and appreciate it in more than fifty translations which to date have been published. It is is with great joy that I now approve and promulgate the Compendium of that Catechism.

The Compendium had been fervently desired by the participants in the International Catechetical Congress of October 2002, which gave voice to a need widely felt in the Church. My beloved Predecessor, recognizing this desire, decided in February 2003 to begin preparation of the text by entrusting the work to a Commission of Cardinals, over which I presided, and which was assisted by various experts. In the course of the work, a draft of the Compendium was submitted to all the Cardinals and the Presidents of Conferences of Bishops, the vast majority of whom evaluated the text favourably.

The Compendium, which I now present to the Universal Church, is a faithful and sure synthesis of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It contains, in concise form, all the essential and fundamental elements of the Church’s faith, thus constituting, as my Predecessor had wished, a kind of vademecum which allows believers and non-believers alike to behold the entire panorama of the Catholic faith.

In its structure, contents and language, the Compendium faithfully reflects the Catechism of the Catholic Church and will thus assist in making the Catechism more widely known and more deeply understood.

I entrust this Compendium above all to the entire Church and, in particular, to every Christian, in order that it may awaken in the Church of the third millennium renewed zeal for evangelization and education in the faith, which ought to characterize every community in the Church and every Christian believer, regardless of age or nationality.

But this Compendium, with its brevity, clarity and comprehensiveness, is directed to every human being, who, in a world of distractions and multifarious messages, desires to know the Way of Life, the Truth, entrusted by God to His Son’s Church. Through the intercession of Mary Most Holy, Mother of Christ and Mother of the Church, may everyone who reads this authoritative text recognize and embrace ever more fully the inexhaustible beauty, uniqueness and significance of the incomparable Gift which God has made to the human race in His only Son, Jesus Christ, the “Way, the Truth, and the Life” (Jn 14:6).

Given on 28 June 2005, the vigil of the Solemnity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, in the first year of my Pontificate. BENEDICTUS PP. XVI

[snip]

1. What was the original condition of the** human person **according to the plan of God?
   374-379
   384
   In creating man and woman God had given them a special participation in his own divine life in holiness and justice. In the plan of God they would not have had to suffer or die. Furthermore, a perfect harmony held sway within the human person, a harmony between creature and Creator, between man and woman, as well as between the **first human couple **and all of creation.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

 

[DustinsDad]

**…*72. What was the original condition of the human person ***according to the plan of God?
374-379
384
*In creating man and woman God had given them a special participation in his own divine life in holiness and justice. In the plan of God they would not have had to suffer or die. Furthermore, a perfect harmony held sway within the human person, a harmony between creature and Creator, between man and woman, as well as between the **first human couple ***and all of creation.

Cool!

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[wildleafblower]

Yes, it is cool JOHN PAUL II message to the MEMBERS OF THE PONTIFICAL, ACADEMY OF SCIENCES noted in my msg. 270 has come to fruition , “We are united in our common desire to correct misunderstandings and even more to allow ourselves to be enlightened by the one Truth which governs the world and guides the lives of all men and women. I am more and more convinced that scientific truth, which is itself a participation in divine Truth, can help philosophy and theology to understand ever more fully the human person and God’s Revelation about man, a Revelation that is completed and perfected in Jesus Christ.”

And the MOTU PROPRIO for the approval and publication of the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church Given on 28 June 2005, the vigil of the Solemnity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, in the first year of my Pontificate. BENEDICTUS PP. XVI supports:

375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”.250 This grace of original holiness was “to share in. . .divine life”.251

376 By the radiance of this grace all dimensions of man’s life were confirmed. As long as he remained in the divine intimacy, man would not have to suffer or die.252 The inner harmony of the human person, the harmony between man and woman,253 and finally the harmony between the first couple and all creation, comprised the state called “original justice”.
And

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.265

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1C.HTM

and

1. What was the original condition of the human person according to the plan of God?
   374-379
   384
   In creating man and woman God had given them a special participation in his own divine life in holiness and justice. In the plan of God they would not have had to suffer or die. Furthermore, a perfect harmony held sway within the human person, a harmony between creature and Creator, between man and woman, as well as between the first human couple and all of creation.

vatican.va/archive/compen…um-ccc_en.html

And, Nobel laureate and Pontifical Academy of Sciences ACADEMICIAN Christian DE DUVE (1) of Christian de Duve Institute of Cellular Pathology participated in The Cultural Values of Science, Plenary Session, 8-11 November 2002, Vatican City, 2003 comment,
Pg. 76: 5, “The Theory of Evolution Is More than a Hypothesis- In those words, Pope John-Paul II, addressing the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in a solemn session, on 22 October 1996, expressed the acceptance of biological evolution by the Church. Considering the implications of this statement, the evidence that convinced the Pontiff must be truly decisive. And so it is. Actually, the Pope’s statement was overly cautious. Evolution is not a theory; it is a fact, implicit in the common descent of all living organisms and established with the same degree of certainty. Thanks to the information provided by fossils and complemented by molecular phylogenies, we have a rough idea of the timing and manner in which evolution has proceeded. A schematic outline of its main steps is shown in Table 1. Bacteria were the sole representatives of life on Earth during more than one billion years. The first eukaryotes emerged around 2.2 billion years ago, probably as the outcome of a long evolutionary history of which no fossil trace has yet been found; they remained unicellular for more than another billion years. It is only after life had completed some three-fourths of its history on Earth that primitive multicellular plants, fungi, and animals first appeared, slowly giving rise to more complex forms.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/archivio/s.v.105_cultural_values/part2.pdf

This all supports in its entirety the INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP:Human Persons Created in the Image of God* which was a team effort on behalf of science and theology!

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

 

[DustinsDad]

Gee wildleafblower; you sure do go to great lengths - and many many words - to demonstrate that the Church still teaches that Adam and Eve were a couple - two individuals.

Thank the good Lord that they’re not holding to a mass population of non-humans getting that random cosmic ray mutation to humanhood at the exact same time. Not only would that violate the deposit of faith…it’s also rather silly .

Thanks!

DustinsDad

 

[wildleafblower]

Gee wildleafblower; you sure do go to great lengths - and many many words - to demonstrate that the Church still teaches that Adam and Eve were a couple - two individuals.

Thank the good Lord that they’re not holding to a mass population of non-humans getting that random cosmic ray mutation to humanhood at the exact same time. Not only would that violate the deposit of faith…it’s also rather silly .

Thanks!

DustinsDad

At least we know for a fact the first human couple and dinosaurs didn’t co-exist on a earth less than 10,000 years old and the basic scientific concepts still apply.
evolutionpages.com/intro_evolution.htm

Once again, the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation Defending Genesis from a Traditional Catholic Perspective has continually failed to meet the expectations of the Catholic Church in the 21st Century. They seem to me to continually misrepresent Vatican documents. And they like weird science which suites their own agenda. Look everyone! Read this article written by a scientist who really knows what he is talking about:

evolutionpages.com/pink_unicorn.htm

 

[wildleafblower]

The great news is Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation Defending Genesis from a Traditional Catholic Perspective will not be taught in American public schools or universities!

p.s. Phil, after the New Year let’s discuss “the” book. I’m ready for the holiday season!